In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

184 testimony before select Committee ofthe newYork state assembly By Boston Investigator February 18, 1855 Albany, New York In an effort to keep the pressure on the New York State Legislature, begun at the prior year’s hearings, women’s rights advocates returned to Albany in 1855. Under the heading “Just and Equal Rights of Women,” the Boston Investigator, on March 14, 1855, reprinted an account published earlier in the Albany Register, reporting: “The select Committee of the Assembly to which was referred the petition for Woman’s Rights . . . granted a hearing to the petitioners, who were represented by the Rev. Antoinette L. Brown, Miss Sarah [sic] B. Anthony, and Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose, in the Assembly Chamber, Saturday evening,” February 18. The account described the testimony of Brown and Rose, who argued for improved child custody rights and other marital and inheritance rights, as well as the enfranchisement of women. n Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose followed [Rev. Antoinette L. Brown], alluding first to the fundamental principle of our Revolutionary fathers, that “all men are created equal,” and said, that under that principle, all that women asked had been granted already. She only asked in fact what is granted in theory—the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Will any one say woman is not included in that glorious Declaration? That principle required no sex, for it was based upon humanity and mind, and they know no sex. Happiness and misery, life and death, recognize no sex. In all the essentials of human life, woman is like man. Where the dividing line begins or ends, we need not seek to know. Her claims are based above these, and she claims nothing she ought not to possess, and she ought to take no less, for principle knows no compromise. She repeated the idea, that without the right to the elective franchise, woman was not secure in the possession of any of her rights; and replied to the objections urged to it. She thought it time that woman helped man in securing peace and quiet at the ballot-box. It was urged that woman, with political rights, would neglect her family. She replied that she would know better her duties to her family, and would the better discharge them. It was asked why, when woman was 185 represented by her father, brother, and son, she should seek to represent herself? The question was worthy of consideration, but she claimed that even if not wronged by their representation, self-representation would be her right. But facts were stubborn things, and she could cite facts to show her position. The statute-books say “he” and “his,” and in but few instances “she” and “hers.” It is said, “husband and wife are one;” aye, said she, but that one is the husband. She wished they were truly one; if so, there would be far less reason for the claims she urged. When woman marries, in almost every sense she dies legally. If she commits crime in the presence of her husband, he is held responsible.—The laws make no distinction between man and man, but between man and woman. She is in our statute-books classed with infants and idiots. The distinction should be between good men and bad men, between right and wrong, not between the sexes. Mrs. R. noticed, in detail, the laws of our land, dwelling upon the property-features of existing laws respecting women. She alluded to the legal right possessed by the husband to take the earnings of his wife, and spend for liquor. The husband has entire control over her, and all business must be transacted in his name, let his character be ever so bad. She desired that woman be allowed to control her own earnings when the husband did not provide. It was just at least, that the laws pertaining to co-partnership, be applied to husbands and wives. The right of the husband to bind out the children without the consent of the mother, was a base injustice to woman. She claimed equal rights for the mother in this particular, and urged the passage of a law upon these subjects, now before the Legislature. Woman was a piece of property, belonging to father, guardian, or husband , transferred from one to the other—her feelings lacerated, from the cradle to the grave. And oppressions inflicted upon woman must fall back upon man. Her place was to furnish the foundation for the after-character of...

Share